Creationism - good or bad?

[gluadys]

Yes, I do disagree. I agree that humankind fell spiritually. They were once in accord with their maker and after the fall they were not. That is in essence what we mean by "fall"--a fall away from God.

Mentally, if anything, they were superior after the fall. They knew they were naked (no longer like innocent babes who don't know what nakedness is.) And as God himself says:

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

That wisdom is a fruit of the tree of knowledge is never denied in scripture.

Physically, there is little difference. The only physical change mentioned in humanity is that women would know pain in childbirth, and in the ground, that it would yield thorns and thistles (and presumably other unwanted crops) in the fields. (Note that it does not say that the ground never yielded thorns and thistles before, only now they would become invasive and it would be a struggle to keep them out of the cultivated fields.)

Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Here again, the implication was that the fear of man was not in animals before this - this would explain how Noah gathered all of the animals so easily. This is a physical change to the earth after the fall, that animals became fearful of man.

Sorry, but you cannot say that something that only showed up after the flood is a consequence of the fall.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Yes, I do disagree. I agree that humankind fell spiritually. They were once in accord with their maker and after the fall they were not. That is in essence what we mean by "fall"--a fall away from God.

Mentally, if anything, they were superior after the fall. They knew they were naked (no longer like innocent babes who don't know what nakedness is.) And as God himself says:

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

That wisdom is a fruit of the tree of knowledge is never denied in scripture.

I now know a few more things about your stances. You are in keeping with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Organization (I refuse to call it the "Church".) Aquinas taught that when Adam fell, he fell spiritually and volitionally, but did his intellect did not fall. Whether you recognize it or not, you put man above Scripture with such a belief. I will expound on this when I am at home in the presence of my library.

Physically, there is little difference. The only physical change mentioned in humanity is that women would know pain in childbirth, and in the ground, that it would yield thorns and thistles (and presumably other unwanted crops) in the fields. (Note that it does not say that the ground never yielded thorns and thistles before, only now they would become invasive and it would be a struggle to keep them out of the cultivated fields.)

Plus everything else I mentioned that you conveniently left out, like the fact that death came into the world, and therefore a physical decay took place, not a growth. It sounds like you aren't making the fall that big of a deal. It changed everything about man; his core being was fractured, tainted, to the point of death. You don't think death is a large physical change? I don't understand why that was omitted from your list.

Sorry, but you cannot say that something that only showed up after the flood is a consequence of the fall.

Well it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the fall, so it was an indirect effect. Man hadn't eaten animal flesh until that point; it was brought on by the fall.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys-
I believe this is our contension - that science doesn't claim to answer the questions I am asking.

I am not sure whether you are expressing your position or what you believe is my position. But I would agree. Science does not claim to answer the questions you are asking.

What I have a problem with is that you seem to think:
1. There is something wrong with science if it doesn't answer the questions you are asking. That is illogical. Why fault science for not answering what it does not claim to answer?

2. That science must be wrong in what it does claim to know. That, too, is illogical. God provided the evidence; God provided the scientists with eyes and ears and a mind to sense and comprehend the evidence. If the conclusions are unsound one must be able to point to a failure in sense or reason or to new evidence.

Theology and science, if each is true to its God-given source, cannot be in disagreement. One cannot cancel out nature through theology any more than one can cancel out special revelation through science. Disagreement points to failure to interpret correctly; investigation will show whether that failure is in the field of science or in the field of biblical interpretation. But one or the other has to give.

In science one cannot exalt one's favorite theory about a phenomenon of nature to the status of nature itself. All scientific "truth" is essentially provisional and scientists have to be ready to change their tune. That is a simple rule of humility in the face of the fact that we know so little of nature as it is.

By the same token, one cannot exalt one's favorite interpretation of scripture to the point that it is identified with inspired scripture itself. That is a simple rule of humility, but I see it far less practiced in theology than I do in science. We need to establish clearly that all interpretations of scripture are provisional and open to change as new evidence presents itself.

Yet you probably claim that science should only be judged by science and nothing else.

Of course. Math is judged by the principles of math; logic by the principles of logic; doctrine by the principles of doctrine; science by the principles of science and all by the standards of truth.

One thing I would like to ask you though, is what you think of the Genesis account, your exegesis of it, and how you fit the big bang/evolution into the text. I would be most interested in this.

I don't. I would consider trying to fit modern science into the bible a form of idolatry. It basically says that science is the ultimate standard of truth and so scripture must conform to science. That is scientism. Not Christian faith.

Therefore my exegesis of the Genesis account does not demand that it be a scientifically accurate account.

I see it as a literary and theological account that provides us with the necessary spiritual knowledge we need about God, nature and ourselves. But it is not a report of particular events on particular days in history.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I won't speak on gluadys' behalf, but I will point out that evolutionary creationists do not read Genesis as a primarilly historical document, but a theological one. Therefore, we make no attempt to read scientific theories like the Big Bang or evolution into Genesis because the book was not written to tell of historical/scientific truths, but spiritual ones.

Well this was what I was looking for. I just want to know whether you take the Genesis account literally, and if you measure one by the other.

Any attempt to do otherwise, to fit modern science into the Bible, is scientism because it promotes science as the arbiter of truth. Until we can agree on this, I don't see this conversation progressing much further.

I do... See here's the problem. You admit that science should not be the "arbiter of truth". I would imagine you place Scripture in that position. Then why do you not use Scripture to interpret science? Why are they separate? Why would Genesis not tell historical/scientific truths? God wrote it, did He not? Is He wrong?

(P.S. Jesusfreak5000: You make no mention of the Tree of Life in your analysis above, yet its very presence in the Garden of Eden has strong implications for the existence of death before the Fall, don't you think?)

No? there is really one sentence given about the tree of life... we don't know anything about it. But the fact that God told Adam he would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil implies that Adam wouldn't have died if he had not eaten of it, correct? He was not fallen, he was a creature with a will, emotions and intellect, much like the angels, who don't die, other than the original fallen angels. This is another evidence that only sin brings death, and that Adam would not have died if he had never sinned.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, I do disagree. I agree that humankind fell spiritually. They were once in accord with their maker and after the fall they were not. That is in essence what we mean by "fall"--a fall away from God.

I've always had difficulty coming to grips with this portion of Christian theology. After departing from more liberal idealized concepts of man, I've become a lot more conservative or orthodox in my theological worldview. There seems to me something inherently flawed (or fallen) about man. But I've never fully come to terms with original sin from the non-literalist perspective.

"They were once in accord with their maker and after the fall they were not." For you, is this a myth that explains to us what we feel is fallen about us, or do you literally believe this myth, implying that man was literally once in accord with his maker? Was there an event which got the wheel turning, or has the wheel been turning from the beginning?

And is fallen man, fallen because it was the will of his maker for him to be fallen, or are we fallen in rebellion to his will?

 

[gluadys]

I
It sounds like you aren't making the fall that big of a deal.

]That is in essence what we mean by "fall"--a fall away from God.

Are you seriously claiming that to be separated from God is "not that big of a deal"?


This illustrates one of my real problems with creationism. It seems that it takes notice of things only if they have a big physical, scientifically measurable impact. Creationism worships at the altar of scientism even while denying the plain facts of science.

A huge spiritual difference is just passed over as if it doesn't exist.

As for death: to be separated from God IS death, even if one is biologically immortal.

 

[gluadys]

I've always had difficulty coming to grips with this portion of Christian theology. After departing from more liberal idealized concepts of man, I've become a lot more conservative or orthodox in my theological worldview. There seems to me something inherently flawed (or fallen) about man. But I've never fully come to terms with original sin from the non-literalist perspective.

"They were once in accord with their maker and after the fall they were not." For you, is this a myth that explains to us what we feel is fallen about us, or do you literally believe this myth, implying that man was literally once in accord with his maker? Was there an event which got the wheel turning, or has the wheel been turning from the beginning?

And is fallen man, fallen because it was the will of his maker for him to be fallen, or are we fallen in rebellion to his will?

Tough question, and I am ruminating about it myself. All I can say now is that I do not think it was one event. I don't think of the fall as an event in history at all, but as an ever present and ongoing reality. So I don't see it as really being possible to discriminate in time between "before the fall" and "after the fall".

 

[Mallon]

Well this was what I was looking for. I just want to know whether you take the Genesis account literally, and if you measure one by the other.

Oh, I read Scripture very literally. More literally than most YECs, I would contend. I strongly suspect that the early Hebrews literally believed in the young-earth, geocentric cosmology described in the Bible.
The question is whether what they believed about the formation of the cosmos is what God intended for us to believe or whether the Mesopotamian cosmology was simply a vehicle by which God delivered His message. I definitely think the latter is the case.

I do... See here's the problem. You admit that science should not be the "arbiter of truth". I would imagine you place Scripture in that position.

No. I place God in that position. God is truth. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a collection of books written by fallible men, inspired (not dictated) by God. Scripture is good for teaching us about God and His plan for salvation. That's what it claims to be. Science is self-validating and is useful for telling us about the physical world around us. Neither the Bible nor science can trump the other because they speak of very different things.

Then why do you not use Scripture to interpret science? Why are they separate?

Because, as I explained above, science and the Bible are concerned with two very different matters. This much has been stated many times throughout the church history, from Augustine, to Calvin, to those tens of thousands of clergy who signed the Clergy Letters.

Why would Genesis not tell historical/scientific truths? God wrote it, did He not? Is He wrong?

Not wrong, no. Just unconcerned with science. Your concern with historical and scientific accuracy was simply not shared by the early Hebrew people. Heck, they favoured numerology over science.

No? there is really one sentence given about the tree of life... we don't know anything about it. But the fact that God told Adam he would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil implies that Adam wouldn't have died if he had not eaten of it, correct?

Nope.
Read Genesis 3:22-23. It says that the Tree of Life was created so that man could live forever. What purpose would it have served if man was created immortal? This strongly implies that God created man mortal, and that in order to remain immortal, Adam and Eve had to eat of the Tree of Life. They were born into a world in which physical death was already a reality. Adam's fall was primarilly a spiritual one.

 

[busterdog]

A huge spiritual difference is just passed over as if it doesn't exist.

And that would be a mistake for sure.

As for our emphasis of the physical, it is no mistake that the essence of faith and our physical survival are mirror images: that is, if Christ did not physically rise from biological death, we are all wasting our time. And, I am myself kind of partial to the idea eternal life. Its kind of hard to underplay its significance in my book. So, I have no problem with that kind of scientism.

 

[gluadys]

And that would be a mistake for sure.

As for our emphasis of the physical, it is no mistake that the essence of faith and our physical survival are mirror images: that is, if Christ did not physically rise from biological death, we are all wasting our time. And, I am myself kind of partial to the idea eternal life. Its kind of hard to underplay its significance in my book. So, I have no problem with that kind of scientism.

I have no problem with that. It is pretty central to the kerygma of salvation and forms a central theme of the gospel.

What I have a problem with is asserting grandiose changes in man and nature that are not scripturally warranted. The fall is essentially spiritual and does not require the sort of substantial changes in physiology or natural processes envisioned by many creationists. Nor are these changes warranted by the text.

This is one of the areas in which TEs actually read the text more literally than creationists do.

 

[busterdog]

What I have a problem with is asserting grandiose changes in man and nature that are not scripturally warranted.

That position can logically coexist with my position about my physical well-being.

I just thought it was funny to take your statement out of context. That way it sounds like you think we shouldn't exagerate the whole death thing.

 

[gluadys]

That position can logically coexist with my position about my physical well-being.

Logically, perhaps, but not scripturally.

I just thought it was funny to take your statement out of context. That way it sounds like you think we shouldn't exagerate the whole death thing.

Well, I am glad you admit it was out of context. As for "the whole death thing" perhaps you missed the last sentence in that post:

As for death: to be separated from God IS death, even if one is biologically immortal.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Are you seriously claiming that to be separated from God is "not that big of a deal"?

Plus everything else I mentioned that you conveniently left out, like the fact that death came into the world, and therefore a physical decay took place, not a growth. It sounds like you aren't making the fall that big of a deal. It changed everything about man; his core being was fractured, tainted, to the point of death. You don't think death is a large physical change? I don't understand why that was omitted from your list.

No, I was claiming that you're not making it a big deal. You are obviously glossing over my points if you came to the conclusion that the fall wasn't a big deal.

This illustrates one of my real problems with creationism. It seems that it takes notice of things only if they have a big physical, scientifically measurable impact. Creationism worships at the altar of scientism even while denying the plain facts of science.

What plain facts of science have I denied???

As for death: to be separated from God IS death, even if one is biologically immortal.

Yes and no... it is a form of death but not the only form. Spiritual death, as well as physical death are what make up the first death. Separation from God is recognized by biblical theology as "the second death". There is more to death than just separation from God. I will die one day, although it will only bring me to His presence.

Your view of the fall is very basic and does not describe much of what biblical theology says about it. You say Adam had a spiritual death. I would like you to explain just what you mean by that.

I believe scripture teaches that Adam fell in every way; his core being, including his emotions, intellect, and volition became tainted and "fell" from its original state. He died a spiritual death which made him incapable of coming back to God of his own volition (total depravity).

If what you say is true, that the intellect of Adam did not suffer from the fall, then you follow the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, or a reformed Aristotlean thought pattern. Aquinas believed as you, that the intellect of Adam did not fall.

Here is the problem - if the intellect did not fall, then man no longer needs enlightenment of the Spirit to understand the things of God. The unsaved man still has the capability of interpretting Scripture correctly since his intellect is not fallen, which is in direct contradiction with Scripture. If man's intellect is not fallen, then he rightfully becomes in charge of interpretation, not the Spirit, and then subjects what Scriptures say to his thought processes. This places man above Scripture - much like what the Roman Catholic Organization has done with its traditions and system of interpretation. Is that what you believe??? That man has authority over Scripture?

I have a chart at my house that explains this very well... this weekend I will post it.

I think you need to reevaluate your stance on the fall...

 

[shernren]

No, I was claiming that you're not making it a big deal. You are obviously glossing over my points if you came to the conclusion that the fall wasn't a big deal.

Gluadys claims that the fall amounts to separation from God.
You claim that she is not making it a big deal.
Therefore, you are claiming that separation from God is not a big deal.

Whatever happened to this?

"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
(Luke 12:4-5 NIV)

Your view of the fall is very basic and does not describe much of what biblical theology says about it. You say Adam had a spiritual death. I would like you to explain just what you mean by that.

I believe scripture teaches that Adam fell in every way; his core being, including his emotions, intellect, and volition became tainted and "fell" from its original state. He died a spiritual death which made him incapable of coming back to God of his own volition (total depravity).

If what you say is true, that the intellect of Adam did not suffer from the fall, then you follow the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, or a reformed Aristotlean thought pattern. Aquinas believed as you, that the intellect of Adam did not fall.

Here is the problem - if the intellect did not fall, then man no longer needs enlightenment of the Spirit to understand the things of God. The unsaved man still has the capability of interpretting Scripture correctly since his intellect is not fallen, which is in direct contradiction with Scripture. If man's intellect is not fallen, then he rightfully becomes in charge of interpretation, not the Spirit, and then subjects what Scriptures say to his thought processes. This places man above Scripture - much like what the Roman Catholic Organization has done with its traditions and system of interpretation. Is that what you believe??? That man has authority over Scripture?

I have a chart at my house that explains this very well... this weekend I will post it.

I think you need to reevaluate your stance on the fall...

What I'm saying now is something I just thought of, so I won't be surprised if it is ultimately wrong.

Within your theology, prelapsarian (before the Fall) Adam had a perfect intellect, a perfect emotion, and a perfect volition. And according to you the Fall tainted all those areas of humanity.

What is the Scriptural evidence for this? After all, Genesis merely describes the immediate outcome as "their eyes were opened" - if anything an augmentation, not a fall! Neither does God's subsequent curse say anything about the humans' intellect.

As far as I know (although I could be wrong) the primary proof of this fallenness in Scripture and traditional Christianity is the fact that unregenerate man cannot help but sin, and cannot be brought by the Scriptures to God, without the help of the Holy Spirit. Am I roughly right? I'm pretty sure my terminology and phraseology are all over the place, but am I in essence correct?

But look here: Adam sinned with a perfect intellect. Moreover, Adam subverted God's clear spoken command not to eat the fruit, again with a perfect intellect. (I am operating from within your assumptions and beliefs here, not my own.) Thus, if Adam could sin and pervert (what was then all of) verbal Scripture, even with a perfect intellect, why shouldn't man today be able to sin and pervert Scripture even if his intellect is perfect? In other words, if sin and perverted Scripture did not prove that Adam had a fallen intellect, why should they prove that man today has a fallen intellect?

I am not saying that we can understand the things of God without the Holy Spirit. But look again at Adam. Adam had a perfect intellect; yet he did not understand the things of God, or he wouldn't have eaten the fruit! (True understanding would have led to obedience.) I think he sinned because he rejected the Holy Spirit at the point of temptation, in the same way that we sin. And when he rejected the Holy Spirit, he could not understand the purpose of God's command, and therefore why he should obey it; this he did even with his perfect intellect.

Or is the Holy Spirit given to us as a kind of read-the-Bible-right patch, the way Microsoft sends out updates to Windows PCs after a security flaw is found? Is He with us to make up the numbers after a few players on the Intellect team got sent off from the team at the Fall?

We are told to use our minds as we read the Scriptures; and the Bible implicitly assumes that our senses are trustworthy - that when the disciples were able to see and hear and touch the risen Jesus, it constituted actual proof of His bodily resurrection. (If the intellect is fallen, and the brain inherently trustworthy, why should the disciples' sensory input be trustworthy in any way?) And yet the Bible is clear that intellectual assent alone is not enough. I don't think it's simply because our intellects are fallen - that if the Fall hadn't happened we would be able to get by without the Holy Spirit on the power of our own neural engines. Rather, I think we have always, and were always meant to, relate with God through the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit deigns to dwell in us now, we who are sinful and broken and disunited; how much more would He have been glad to dwell in us and guide us into all truth if we had been a race of perfectly God-seeking beings!

This is a new thing (to myself) that I am arguing here; I am open to correction.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Oh, I read Scripture very literally. More literally than most YECs, I would contend. I strongly suspect that the early Hebrews literally believed in the young-earth, geocentric cosmology described in the Bible.
The question is whether what they believed about the formation of the cosmos is what God intended for us to believe or whether the Mesopotamian cosmology was simply a vehicle by which God delivered His message. I definitely think the latter is the case.

So... God communicated His message through a false picture of creation? Because that's exactly what you are saying. The book of Hebrews says God cannot lie... and you are saying that through a lie, God delivered His message.

No. I place God in that position. God is truth. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a collection of books written by fallible men, inspired (not dictated) by God. Scripture is good for teaching us about God and His plan for salvation. That's what it claims to be. Science is self-validating and is useful for telling us about the physical world around us. Neither the Bible nor science can trump the other because they speak of very different things.

Be careful. You are placing the Word of God on an equal level as nature. God's Word is simply His message given to us, revealing Himself to us in whatever manner He pleases. The Word of God can speak very accurately about science; there is no reason that it can't. Scientist's try to separate the two, but you can't. God's Word is relevant to all things. Scripture reveals more than just God's purpose of salvation. I agree that is the primary purpose, but don't claim there are no secondary truths.

Because, as I explained above, science and the Bible are concerned with two very different matters. This much has been stated many times throughout the church history, from Augustine, to Calvin, to those tens of thousands of clergy who signed the Clergy Letters.

And I agree they are primarily concerned with two different fields, but those fields blend at some point, because Scripture speaks of nature and creation at times. The fact that it speaks of nature shows that God wanted to reveal to us truths about His creation. Common sense!

Not wrong, no. Just unconcerned with science. Your concern with historical and scientific accuracy was simply not shared by the early Hebrew people. Heck, they favoured numerology over science.

Yes, they did. But God wrote His word through them and it is infallible. That is the point - what is written in Genesis is as historically and scientifically true as the fact that Jesus came and died for our sins. God would not have written the Genesis account through Moses or whoever and have there be false ideas within it. That goes against the character of God. He is immutable and incapable of telling anything other than truth. Yet you will disregard that in whatever way you can.

Nope.
Read Genesis 3:22-23. It says that the Tree of Life was created so that man could live forever. What purpose would it have served if man was created immortal? This strongly implies that God created man mortal, and that in order to remain immortal, Adam and Eve had to eat of the Tree of Life. They were born into a world in which physical death was already a reality. Adam's fall was primarilly a spiritual one.

Firstly, the passage does not say that the tree of life was created so man could live forever; it doesn't say anything about the reason for its existence. And that is why I wish to stay away from being dogmatic on a doctrine of the tree of life. There simply isn't much info given on it.

The problem I see with your hypothesis is that God says this after Adam fell - which would imply that Adam could live forever and avoid the physical death that is brought on by spiritual death. The tree of life is quite ambiguous - you can't build a doctrine off of it like you are trying to do.

 

[Mallon]

So... God communicated His message through a false picture of creation? Because that's exactly what you are saying. The book of Hebrews says God cannot lie... and you are saying that through a lie, God delivered His message.

No.
The sun is depicted many times throughout the Scriptures as revolving around the earth. That is to say, the Bible describes a geocentric cosmology. Post-Copernican Christianity has come to explain away this discrepancy by appealing to accomodationalism. In other words, we believe that Joshua and David and the other Old Testament writers described what they saw and understood from their fallible, earth-bound human vantage point. We believe that God accomodated His message to the limitations of human knowledge, the way a parent would communicate with a child.
Evolutionary creationists interpret the Genesis creation account in a similar manner.

Be careful. You are placing the Word of God on an equal level as nature.

God created nature, did He not?

God's Word is simply His message given to us, revealing Himself to us in whatever manner He pleases.

And God reveals Himself to us through nature as well. It says so right in the Scriptures (Psalm 19:1-2; Romans 1:20).

The Word of God can speak very accurately about science; there is no reason that it can't.

The Bible never claims to speak accurately about science. That is a position that you are imposing on the Bible yourself.

God's Word is relevant to all things.

Where does it claim this? God's message to us is one of spirit, not science (1 Cor 2).

Yes, they did. But God wrote His word through them and it is infallible.

The Bible claims to be useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Nothing more; nothing less. And righteousness is a matter of spirit. The Bible does not claim to be infallible on matters of science because the Bible was not written to address issues of science.

Firstly, the passage does not say that the tree of life was created so man could live forever; it doesn't say anything about the reason for its existence.

Sure it does. It says "He [man] must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." This tells us that if we still had access to the Tree of Life, we could live forever. It is the Tree of Life that granted Adam and Eve immortality. They were not created that way.

The problem I see with your hypothesis is that God says this after Adam fell - which would imply that Adam could live forever and avoid the physical death that is brought on by spiritual death. The tree of life is quite ambiguous - you can't build a doctrine off of it like you are trying to do.

Now who's guilty of avoiding what Scripture plainly says?

 

[gluadys]

No, I was claiming that you're not making it a big deal. You are obviously glossing over my points if you came to the conclusion that the fall wasn't a big deal.

But I did NOT come to that conclusion. You put that thought out, not me.

The very first thing I said when you raised the matter of the fall was: "The huge difference is that we are now alienated from God." (Post 134)

I disagreed that there was a huge change in human physiology or psychology because I see no scriptural support for that. Ditto for changes in nature.

But I never said the fall was not a big deal. You are the one claiming that all these other things have to be added to our alienation from God. So it is you who apparently claims that to be separated from God is not a big deal---not unless that brings with it a whole lot of other changes never mentioned in scripture.

Yes and no... it is a form of death but not the only form. Spiritual death, as well as physical death are what make up the first death. Separation from God is recognized by biblical theology as "the second death". There is more to death than just separation from God. I will die one day, although it will only bring me to His presence.

So which is the greater concern? The physical death which will bring you into God's presence or the spiritual death that keeps you out of God's presence. I don't deny that Christ overcame both, but I do say that overcoming spiritual death was the crucial matter: the one that counts the most.

Paul seems to agree. Earlier you quoted Ephesians. Presumably the Ephesians to whom Paul is writing are alive and well physically. Yet using a past tense he says: "You were dead." Specifically he says they were dead "in trespasses and sins". That is the death from which they have already been saved; and because they are saved from that death, physical death will take them into God's presence. Whereas to be saved from physical death without being saved from spiritual death would do them no good at all.

My question to you is: why do you feel you need to add to that spiritual death any additional details in order to make it "a big deal"? Is it not a matter of eternal importance that we have been separated from God by our sins? What could possibly be added to that to make more than a smidgeon's difference? So why add anything over and above what is plainly stated in the text?

Your view of the fall is very basic and does not describe much of what biblical theology says about it.

Show me.

You say Adam had a spiritual death. I would like you to explain just what you mean by that.

I already have: separation from God. God is the source of all Being. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life. To be separated from that source is death in all senses of the term. It is to be separated from Love; it is to be in a state of conflict with God, oneself, and one's fellow-beings both human and non-human. It is a breakdown of harmonious relationships between humanity and everything/everyone else that exists.

I believe scripture teaches that Adam fell in every way; his core being, including his emotions, intellect, and volition became tainted and "fell" from its original state.

And I say show me that scripture supports this.

Do you also claim that non-human nature was similarly affected? If so, show me that scripture supports this as well.

He died a spiritual death which made him incapable of coming back to God of his own volition (total depravity).

Hey, I'm a Calvinist too, though a moderate one. I do not accept limited atonement. However, this is not my understanding of total depravity.

Here is the problem - if the intellect did not fall, then man no longer needs enlightenment of the Spirit to understand the things of God.

Poppycock. The intellect was never made to understand spiritual matters in the first place. The intellect understands reason, not spirit.

Besides, the real point I have been making in this conversation is that God has equipped us to understand nature. The intellect is capable of understanding nature even though it is not capable of understanding the things of God.

The unsaved man still has the capability of interpretting Scripture correctly since his intellect is not fallen, which is in direct contradiction with Scripture.

I am not particularly concerned that the unsaved person (please: not all the unsaved are men!) is incapable of correctly interpreting scripture. General revelation is given to the saved and unsaved alike and the unsaved person is as well equipped to interpret nature as one who is saved. Indeed, that is why we do not have two systems of science, but only one to which scientists of all religious descriptions subscribe.

What plain facts of science have I denied???

The subject of the sentence was "creationism" not "Jesusfreak5000". We have not discussed science in that much detail yet.

 

[gluadys]

So... God communicated His message through a false picture of creation? Because that's exactly what you are saying.

No, that is not what he is saying at all. The picture of creation is true, but it is symbolic and spiritual, not sensory and physical.

Be careful. You are placing the Word of God on an equal level as nature. God's Word is simply His message given to us, revealing Himself to us in whatever manner He pleases.

One has to be careful in using the terminology "Word of God". Scripture tells us that the 'logos' or Word is the second person of the Trinity who became flesh and dwelt among us. This is the same Word that created the universe and spoke (in the person of the Holy Spirit) through the prophets.

Obviously, this Word, to which scripture bears witness, is not scripture itself. It was not the Bible who created the world, but God. It was not the Bible who was crucified for us, but God incarnate in Christ Jesus. It was not the Bible that prophesied, but prophets moved by the Holy Spirit.

Understood so, of course nature is not on a par with the Word of God. But neither is scripture. We should rather think of the Word (Christ) as presenting us with two books: in one hand scripture and in the other nature. Both are his word.

And then we should see ourselves reading both, but with our spectacles on. The spectacles are our interpretive lenses. When we read God's book of nature with these spectacles on we get science. When we read God's book of scripture with these spectacles on we get theology.

So science is on a par with theology; both are humanly fallible.

Nature is on a par with scripture: both are God-given and free from error.

And above all stands the Word of God, source of both nature and scripture.

The fact that it speaks of nature shows that God wanted to reveal to us truths about His creation. Common sense!

The most important things God wanted to reveal about nature (and which we cannot learn from nature itself) is 1. that it is a creation and not a god itself; 2. that it is his creation and only his creation. He did not share the task of creation with other gods; and 3. that all of creation is good in his eyes.

But when it comes to those matters about nature that nature is perfectly capable of revealing itself, and humans are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves, there is no need for special revelation.

What is most important is that given the truthfulness of God, he will not tell us one story in scripture and a contradictory story in nature.